First Nations Voice to Parliament

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (14:45): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs about the state-based Voice to Parliament.

Leave granted.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: On the day of the referendum in which South Australia's public voted overwhelmingly against an enshrined Federal Voice to Parliament, the Premier posted a tweet informing the South Australian public that he had voted yes. Subsequent comments under that tweet over the next 24 to 48 hours and beyond were overwhelmingly in their disagreement, and included remarks such as the following:

Do the right thing Peter, respect the people's vote. We don't want a voice to parliament in SA.

Time to drop the SA Voice and treat all Australians equally.

Premier Pete, the people have spoken. Time to repeal this divisive legislation which was passed without the people's consent. Now you know the majority are not with you on this.

60% of SA disagrees with you.

Repeal SA Voice!

Seeing as South Australia overwhelmingly rejected the voice, the expectation is now that you remove the state based one.

My question to the minister is: why won't his government listen to the overwhelming majority of South Australians who have voted against a federal enshrined Voice to Parliament, and simply do not want South Australia to go down the path of a similar State Voice?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for her question. I am happy to repeat much of what I have said before because the honourable member clearly wasn't listening. I have to say, if the opposition want to take their policy development ideas from comments on social media they are most welcome to, and that is probably why they will spend the next 20 years out of government. They are most welcome to do that. As I have said, there are significant differences between what we are doing in South Australia and the proposal to change the federal constitution.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Leader of the Opposition! The Hon. Mrs Henderson! The Hon. Ms Girolamo! Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: There are very significant differences between the two things. In fact, I might quote from a news article report only from today that quotes the Liberal's very own Senator Kerrynne Liddle when it says:

But Senator Liddle, an SA Liberal, echoed Mr Malinauskas's distinction between a legislated and a constitutionally enshrined Voice.

It goes on to say:

The difference between the proposed, now-defeated Voice proposition and the SA Voice is that the SA Voice is legislated, not enshrined within the constitution.

Perhaps if the honourable member listened to their own Aboriginal members of their party rather than social media comments they might be slightly more informed. But I tell you what we will continue to do: we will continue to consult with Aboriginal people, with Aboriginal communities, with Aboriginal elders and Aboriginal leaders to come up with our policy in Aboriginal affairs.

I will issue a challenge to the Leader of the Opposition, who will get up and ask the next question. When she gets up and asks the next question, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to outline their Aboriginal affairs policies. By this time in the last electoral cycle we had announced a whole suite of Aboriginal affairs policies. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to get up—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: —when she gets to her feet, and name just three Aboriginal leaders that the Liberal Party has consulted with in the development of their Aboriginal affairs policy. If the Leader of the Opposition can't do that, it's going to be very telling.